On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This was discovered while testing/reviewing the latest version of the
>> INCLUDE covering indexes patch. It now seems to be unrelated.
> Oh, wait ... I wonder if you saw that because you were running a new
> backend without having re-initdb'd?

Yes. That's what happened.

> Once you had re-initdb'd, then
> of course there would be no old-format btree indexes anywhere.  But
> if you hadn't, then anyplace that was not prepared to cope with the
> old header format would complain about pre-existing indexes.
> In short, this sounds like a place that did not get the memo about
> how to cope with un-upgraded indexes.

Sounds plausible.

Peter Geoghegan

Reply via email to